In the recently decided case, Holleman v. Golden Nugget Lake Charles, LLC, 2024-70 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/27/24), the Louisiana Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment granted in favor of an architectural firm. Holleman involved personal injury claims brought against the Golden Nugget Casino and the architectural firm Bergman Walls for alleged injuries suffered by Martha Holleman following a slip and fall in the casino’s pool area. Holleman alleged the floor tile in the pool area was not designed with the proper coefficient of friction for wet areas and was in violation of the applicable local building codes. Holleman settled her claims against the Golden Nugget Casino, leaving only her claims against Bergman Walls.
Bergman Walls filed two summary judgment motions. The first was March 19, 2021, which was granted and reversed at the appellate level on procedural grounds. Bergman Walls filed its second motion on September 13, 2023. Bergman Walls argued it was not liable for Holleman’s injuries and sought to shift blame to a landscape architect, who it argued was an independent contractor who designed the tiles. The trial court granted Bergman Well’s September 19, 2023, motion, finding that Bergman Walls was not “solidarily liable for” the alleged negligent acts of the independent contractor pursuant to La. C.C. art. 2324, Louisiana’s comparative fault statute.
On appeal, the Louisiana Court of Appeals held Bergman Walls had the burden of establishing the existence of the independent contractor agreement. The Court normally employs five factors to determine the existence of an independent contractor. Unfortunately, Bergman Walls did not include its contract with the independent contractor in the summary judgment record. Aside from this crucial omission, Bergman Walls’ contract with the Golden Nugget Casino included provisions stating it was responsible for any and all architectural services for the completion of the project.
The Court also looked to 46 La. Admin. Code Pt I,1307, which lays out the professional standards for design professionals. The regulation states, “the architect…shall assume all responsibility for compliance with laws or ordinances relating to the design of projects with which he may be engaged.” The Court also noted Bergman Walls filed a Design Supervision Statement with the City of Lake Charles certifying the plans conform to the local building code. The Court held the Design Services Agreement and the Design Supervision Statement created genuine issues of material fact precluding Bergman Well’s motion for summary judgment.
The Holleman decision should serve as a cautionary tale. Design professionals need to stay fully aware of their roles on a project and to ensure their contracts entered into on a project do not conflict with their intended scope of authority.